Just started reading a story where the jobtitle "gofer" popped up and immediately my mind filled in, "go fer this, go fer that - gofer". Isn't that a quote from some old B/W gangster movie, think James Cagney era or so.
Didn't have much luck with google so was hoping someone here might have better memory than me.
That's not me these days, sorry...
But, that's what I grew up hearing here in the Northeastern US, and that's exactly what I was taught it meant...
Google gave me this definition:
a person who runs errands, especially on a movie set or in an office.
"he had worked his way from a gofer in the front office to general manager"
My experience with the term is in the office.
That's what wikipedia told me, but it didn't mention any old movies. Of course, it might be my memory playing tricks on me but I have a distinct feeling there is a movie out there with this in it.
It's a term which originated (I'm pretty sure) in the 1940's, and likely originated during the U.S.A.'s prohibition, which it why it figured so prominently in so many early gangster films.
As Switch and others noted, it's till around to a more limited use, just as "gansta" is, though often with all new connotations (i.e. it's less harsh and deriding and is now a more general term who basically anyone who serves such a role).
I keep watching the old films, often the ones that Disney bought out and then tossed in the trash (likely burned) as a complete write off, yet that didn't affect the old, preserved film canister roles the theaters had kept back in the day.
So yeah, it's quite common in many of those firms, not much in the 40's but definitely from the 50s until … I'm guessing the 60s or 70s?
As for movies, think Cagney rather than Rock Hudson.
old, preserved film canister roles the theaters had kept back in the day.
For the most part the theaters did not keep the reels of film. They were rented for a specific period of time, which could be extended. Then they were picked up by the distributer when they delivered a new film. That was why a film was generally advertised for a 1 or 2 week showing.
Years back there was a huge fire in north New Jersey where a film distributer's warehouse went up in smoke. Over 95% of the films were destroyed, either directly by fire or indirectly by the intense heat generated by the fire. I understand that they had films from back in the 20's, in black and white as well as color. Their inventory listed as many as 50 copies of some movies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Fox_vault_fire
A major fire occurred in a 20th Century-Fox film-storage facility in Little Ferry, New Jersey, United States on July 9, 1937. Flammable nitrate film had previously contributed to several fires in film-industry laboratories, studios and vaults, although the precise causes were often unknown. In Little Ferry, gases produced by decaying film, combined with high temperatures and inadequate ventilation, resulted in spontaneous combustion.
One death and two injuries resulted from the fire, which also destroyed all of the archived film in the vaults, resulting in the loss of most of the silent films produced by the Fox Film Corporation before 1932. Also destroyed were negatives from several other studios. The fire brought attention to the potential for decaying nitrate film to spontaneously ignite and changed the focus of film-preservation efforts to include a greater focus on fire safety.
Except, there were always exceptions, thus many of those which were written off as write-offs so they could purchase every other media company are still available.
But yet, according to the film studios, they should never have existed. Yet somehow, they still turn up occasionally (not much anymore, but over the years).
But, people often trust traditional sources rather than facts. Which is fine, but … there still are the occasional exceptions, whether you personally believe in them or not.
Yet, most consider me a 'wing-nut' anyway, so … Again, it's no skin off my back whether you're interested in believing it or not. By the way, I also remember that there were many files which someone escaped that fire, those stored behind metal filing cabinets or back closets. I can't remember any specific details, yet that was reported, if you looked past the headlines.
But again, I have no specific references because, I remember what I need to, rather than what others demand I do, forty years later.
But, people often trust traditional sources rather than facts.
It's not that people trust traditional sources over facts. The problem is that if a "fact" doesn't come from a trustworthy source there's no way to know if it is a fact. Human memory is flawed. Without a source, all we have is words, not facts.
My COD says it originated in the 1960s as a contraction of 'go for'.
But "gofor" is a noun.
But "gofor" is a noun.
In English, we verb nouns and noun verbs all the time.
'Shelve books' being one of the less controversial ones.
Yeah, but that's due to common usage, rather than someone purposely mangling terms for their own purposes. Thus contractions are a natural outgrowth of common usage, as are all new definitions for traditional words. But if someone does it on their own, for their own purposes, it just don't look so good.
That said, that tradition was largely born with Shakespeare, as he literally invented many of our current idioms and common phrases, and the American language has grown like weeds ever since. Plus, as a novelist, especially focusing in sc-fi space saga and fantasy stories, I've been known to 'coin' a new term in the course of my writing. But if I do so in the comments, then it either a typo or an auto-correction glitch.
You only coin new terms when it fits the particular situation in a given story. Whether anyone else uses it is entirely in the readers' hands, not the authors.
And in my case, I've seen a few authors recycle some of my 'hard' sci-fi concepts, which I love and fully support, yet never any of my specific in-story coined terms.
That said, that tradition was largely born with Shakespeare, as he literally invented many of our current idioms and common phrases
It is far more likely he was the first to record them, not the first to use them.
It is far more likely he was the first to record them, not the first to use them.
Well, kinda, sorta. He used the rhetorical devices first used by the Ancient Greeks. At the time, nearly everyone had completely forgotten about them, so doing some routine research (presumably) he discovered them and scoured them.
Then, to make a point, rather than writing an all-new story, he took a popular piece of fiction, and rewrote it entirely, employing every single rhetorical device listed. And, the books he spoofed have all been forgotten to history, practically vanishing as soon as he published in one and only book, never writing another again.
I've always wondered whether he was actually an author at all, or again was he just proving a point, not able to cobble together a basic story on his own. Either way, the rest is history.
And it just goes to show, it's all about how you present the story, not the story itself.
Well, kinda, sorta. He used the rhetorical devices first used by the Ancient Greeks. At the time, nearly everyone had completely forgotten about them, so doing some routine research (presumably) he discovered them and scoured them.
Then, to make a point, rather than writing an all-new story, he took a popular piece of fiction, and rewrote it entirely, employing every single rhetorical device listed. And, the books he spoofed have all been forgotten to history, practically vanishing as soon as he published in one and only book, never writing another again.
Once again, you entirely miss the point. The claim was about Shakespeare coining phrases or making new use of words, NOT about the stories.
What I wrote is not 'kinda, sorta' correct, it IS correct.
My point was, he recorded most of them, he didn't invent them.
If you want to address storylines, themes, or devices, that's a different discussion.
Those we most quote today were most definitely NOT standards by others of his period, which is why they stand the test of time. It was simply everyday drivel, it wouldn't be nearly as memorable. The odd syntax and the more archaic spellings were pretty common at the time.
Again, he basically redefined English when he first published his work and it's continued since. So he wasn't merely another writer in his day. He popped up out of the blue, never having been heard from before, and disappeared just as suddenly. There were rumors, still repeated today, of his family, though there's little direct recorded evidence of their lives. But again, that was pretty common for anyone but noblemen at that time.
But again, for whatever reason, we always seem to tangle, so I've come to expect this 'double and double check every singe detail and challenge each one' approach. And in those cases, it's easy catching me with my pants down—as I do have both specific dyslexias and MAJOR Issues with basic spelling. So you can endlessly nitpick anything I post as I typically have my online and forum posts professionally edited.
But given my clearly obvious flaws, you seem overly focused to tearing apart ANY concept, no matter how minor or insignificant.
So, we may get along for short periods, yet it never lasts for long, as you sir, are incredibly pedantic, while my strength has always been seeing trends that other non-spectrum individual, don't. So there's simply no reason debating every single minutia of my posts as there WILL be errors!
So, we may get along for short periods, yet it never lasts for long, as you sir, are incredibly pedantic, while my strength has always been seeing trends that other non-spectrum individual, don't.
Non-sequitor. I did not deny the trend, nor deny that Shakespeare changed the language. My original point was about correcting a misconception many people have. It wasn't a definitive, overall statement about anything else about Shakespeare.
You tried to 'correct' me when there was nothing to correct. And now you're, in effect, complaining that I pointed that out.
Yeah, but that's due to common usage, rather than someone purposely mangling terms for their own purposes.
Except that SOMEBODY had to be first, and they may well have verbed the noun or nouned the verb for their own purposes.
Eh, different terms for different times, every generation does the same time since time immemorial, so why worry about it. It's the same concept. My point however, was that even if authors coin their own term for their own story, that alone doesn't make it common usage. That's something the general public does, not anyone's specific fans.
What's more, in English, there are very specific guidelines about how to spell words, whether nouned or verbed, as otherwise, no one would have the slightest clue how to use it. Which is why American English pissed the Brits so much! Blame Daniel Webster for that one, as he was the one who set the standards, yet hardly anyone has ever added much to them other than by common usage.
My point however, was that even if authors coin their own term for their own story, that alone doesn't make it common usage. That's something the general public does, not anyone's specific fans.
Again, it has to start somewhere, and it has to spread. Who would is spread to if not the original person's friends or fans. They are part of the general public.
Again, my point is, it has to originate with someone. Period.
Blame Daniel Webster for that one, as he was the one who set the standards, yet hardly anyone has ever added much to them other than by common usage."
Daniel Webster was a US Senator and attorney. Noah Webster wrote the dictionary - which didn't make any lasting changes in the spelling of words; he just chose versions of spellings already in use instead of the ones chosen in Johnson's dictionary.
didn't make any lasting changes in the spelling of words; he just chose versions of spellings already in use instead of the ones chosen in Johnson's dictionary.
In Shakespeare's collected works, you can find both the 'u' and 'non-u' spellings of some words.
Are you sure about that?
Yes. According to:
Merriam-Webster
Cambridge
Dictionary.com
Collins
and probably all the other dictionaries.
dictionary.com says "no results found for "gofor".
Mirriam-Webster doesn't recognize the word.
dictionary.cambridge.org says:
Search suggestions for gofor
We have these words with similar spellings or pronunciations:
go for
gofer
gofers
goes for
gone for
Collins says:
Sorry, no results for "gofor" in the English Dictionary.
Did you mean:
go for
gofer
do for
gofers
Cambridge link: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gofer
Merriam-Webster link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gofer
Dictionary.com link: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gofer
Collins link: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/english-language-learning/gofer#google_vignette
Britannica link: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/gofer
Well, you are the one who claimed, and I quote:
But "gofor" is a noun.
I asked if you were sure about that. :p
What about all the quotes we got from Yoda?
From Yoda what about all the quotes we got?
FTFY courtesy of https://lingojam.com/EnglishtoYoda